287
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
287 points (97.4% liked)
Fuck AI
8217 readers
1849 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All the other issues people already pointed out about this post, there is another point that I didn’t see mentioned. One, among many, dumb things she wrote was basically that Gen Z and Gen Alpha are the only ones who take sick leave. So is she saying other people from other generations just work through their illnesses to the companies benefit and their own (and others) detriment? Mating in reading to far into something that sounds like a stream of consciousness.
She's comparing them to AI. AI doesn't take sick leave
That is true, but then why specify a generation in that sentence? Illnesses are experienced by people of every generation. Maybe she is generalizing in that she thinks only people from those generations are in entry level jobs. I just seems odd to add that into a statement that could have been exclusively about LLMs, not about getting sick. Though that said, LLMs are not “immune” to going down for some time due to unexpected external input (e.g. hackers) or internal issues (e.g. buggy code).
It's exactly this; she's saying people entering the workforce (predominantly young people) are now competing with AI. You can't get experience if you don't get a job, and you can't get a job because you don't have experience has always been a stumbling block, but now AI can do those low-level things that companies used to be willing to let those inexperienced workers cut their teeth on.
What her narrative is interestingly completely ignoring is that not just employees need to gather experience, companies need to get experienced people to handle all that AI outfall and they will get much rarer if the above policy were to become the norm. In her scenario companies would select for rich parents instead of talent, these two things commonly to not correlate very strongly.
So companies are destroying their talent base over peanuts (entry salaries). They will have a serious disadvantage over other companies selecting for talent instead. Of course that is too long term for shareholder value people.
Oh yes, completely agree it's short-sighted of the companies, but that's the way they operate these days.
The thing is, if that is so, the employment market will shift (because of a lack of experienced people) and become one dominated by employees again. That will lead also for short termers to the opposite situation described by her above.
True. I guess her logic was just not very easy to understand (in my opinion any way), as it combined multiple topics into what should have been one point.
The paradox of needing experience to get work and work to get experience has been going on some time now. Unfortunately, now companies have an excuse not to hire for entry level positions and therefore not train people up. Although, surely there will be need for entry level positions to grind through mountains of AI output to correct its mistakes. Which is not necessarily the best training, but at least it would be something rather than just not hiring people. Though, many companies probably won’t realize there are mistakes for a while, after which it will probably have skipped past a bunch of recent graduates.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianehamilton/2025/03/01/are-entry-level-jobs-going-away-the-hidden-workforce-shift/